Center for Urban Studies - April 2000
Discussion P a p e r S e r i e s , N o . 1
Asians in the U.S.
and Canada:
Patterns and Issues
Related to Recent Regional and
Me t ro p o l i t a n S e t t l e me nt s
College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs
Center for Urban Studies - April 2000
Discussion P a p e r S e r i e s , N o . 1
Asians in the U.S.
and Canada:
Patterns and Issues
Related to Recent Regional and
Me t ro p o l i t a n S e t t l e me nt s
Bryan Thompson
Geography and Urban Planning, WSU
Kurt Metzger
Center for Urban Studies, WSU
College of Urban, Labor and Metropolitan Affairs
Introduction
The purpose of this discussion paper is to examine recent settlement of Asians
in Canada and the United States, emphasizing regional and metropolitan
patterns. Prior to the analysis of Asian settlement some general areas of
interest are introduced along with a series of issues and questions.
A geographic approach is taken throughout the paper, so as to gain an
understanding of spatial patterns, spatial change, and spatial interaction. In
applying this definition to the study of ethnic groups, it is possible to carry
out studies at both macro and micro scales. For example, the arrival of the
French, British, African Americans, and Spanish established what might be
thought of as New France, New England, New Africa (the South), and New
Spain (the Southwest). To complete the ethnic circle, the recent arrival of
groups from Asia has given rise to New Asia along the Pacific Rim and even
more specifically in the state of California.
Ethnic groups can be studied at narrower scales than the region. For example,
40 percent of all of the people of Chinese ancestry in Canada live in metropolitan Toronto. Furthermore, there are four major areas of concentration
within the metropolitan area, and differences are observed even at the block
level.
A second area of interest is what has been termed “immigrant gateways.”
Early gateways to the settlement of North America were major waterways such
as Hudson Bay, and the St. Lawrence, Hudson, and Mississippi river valleys.
Later, in the nineteenth century, immigrants arrived through major port cities
like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. More recently, immigrants have been
arriving through a limited number of gateway cities. During the period 19901999, the largest number arrived through the New York Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) and the Los Angeles CMSA, with 1.45 million
and 1.29 million immigrants, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, Population
Estimates Program). The next largest reception area, the San Francisco CMSA,
received 510,000 immigrants. All three of these metropolitan areas experienced large domestic out-migration. It is estimated that 1.98 million people
moved out of the New York CMSA during the same period, 620,000 from the
Los Angeles metropolitan area, and 390,000 from San Francisco.
The third area of interest focuses on domestic migration. Historically, cities
receiving large numbers of immigrants also received large numbers of domestic
migrants. For example, in the early years of the twentieth century, Detroit, as
a result of a rapidly growing automobile industry, attracted overseas immigrants in large numbers, as well as migrants from several areas in North
America, particularly the South and Appalachia. In contrast to this earlier
pattern, cities receiving the largest number of domestic migrants from 19901999 received few immigrants. The Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
with the largest number of domestic migrants, 507,000, only had 83,000
immigrants. A second example, the Denver CMSA, received 200,000 domestic
migrants but only 51,000 immigrants.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
1
The final area of interest deals with the persistence of early-established
patterns despite massive migrations over the years. For example, the South,
home to 83 percent of African Americans in 1900 is still home to more than
50 percent of African Americans, and the St. Lawrence River Valley, settled by
the French hundreds of years ago, is still the cultural heart of French Canada.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
2
Recent Immigration
Trends
Throughout their respective histories Canada and the United States have
absorbed large numbers of immigrants. Today the pattern continues unabated
with the United States taking in more immigrants than ever before in its
history. From 1971 through 1980, 4.5 million immigrants came; from 1981
through 1990, 7.3 million; and, from 1991 through 1996, 6.1 million. The
highest number in any previous decade was 8.8 million from 1901-1910. A
more consistent pattern is evidenced in Canada with the admittance of 1.8
million from 1971-1981; 1.9 million from 1981-1991; and 1.2 million from
1991-1996. It should be noted that, although the United States admitted five
times more immigrants than Canada, the rate of admission is proportionally
less, since the population of the U.S. is almost ten times that of Canada.
Furthermore, the current foreign born population of Canada is approximately
16 percent of the total population whereas in the U.S., it is approximately 8
percent.
Source areas for incoming immigrants have changed in the two countries.
Initially the major source of newcomers was Europe; although in the United
States African Americans were brought over in bondage and Hispanic people
had moved northward from Mexico. Europe was still the major source in the
early post-World War II period, but in more recent years, largely as a result of
major changes in immigration law, there has been a shift to Asia as the major
source in both the U.S. and Canada. In Canada, from 1961-1970, 69.1 percent
of immigrants were from Europe, and 11.8 percent were from Asia. During the
1981-1990 period, however, only 24.8 percent were from Europe and 47.7
percent from Asia. This pattern has continued through the nineties (19911996) with 20 percent of immigrants coming from Europe and 57 percent from
Asia. Similar patterns occurred in the U.S. During the period from 1961-1970,
37.3 percent of immigrants originated in Europe while 13.4 percent came from
Asia. During the years of 1981-1990, only 9.6 percent were from Europe and
38.4 percent from Asia, and from 1991-1996, 16 percent came from Europe
and 34 percent from Asia.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
3
Racial/Ethnic Distribution in the U.S.,
1995-2020
In 1995, it was estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau that the Asian population in the United States made up 3.6 percent of the total population of the
country compared with the white non-Hispanic population, estimated at 73.6
percent of the total (see Table 1). By 2020, it is estimated that the Asian
population will grow to 6.9 percent of the population, and the white nonHispanic population will be 62.4 percent.
Table 1. Racial/Ethnic Composition of
the United States, 1995 - 2020
Year
Total
Population
(millions)
Asian
White NonBlack
Hispanic
(percent)
Hispanic
1995
262.8
3.6
73.6
12.6
10.2
2020
357.7
6.9
62.4
13.2
17.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4
Growth of Asian Groups in Canada and
the United States
During the 1980s Asians in Canada and the United States approximately
doubled in population, with more recently arriving groups such as the Cambodians, Vietnamese, and Thai increasing at a faster rate than earlier arriving
groups like the Chinese and Japanese (see Tables 2 and 3).
Percent
Asian Group Population in Change 1981
1981 (000s)
- 1991
Total
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Laotian
Thai
467.8
289.0
73.0
41.0
22.0
31.0
4.0
7.0
0.5
103%
103%
119%
19%
100%
168%
293%
87%
225%
Percent
Asian Group Population in Change 1980
1980 (000s)
- 1990
Total
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Laotian
Thai
3021
812
782
716
357
245
16
48
45
89%
103%
80%
18%
124%
151%
819%
213%
102%
Table 2. Asians in Canada*
*Does not represent all Asian groups in
Canada. Above groups represented 3.5
percent of Canada’s population
in 1991.
Source: Statistics Canada
Table 3. Asians in the United States*
*Does not represent all Asian groups in the
United States. The groups listed above
represented 2.3 percent of the United
States population in 1990.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
With the increasing number of immigrants in recent years who are Vietnamese,
Korean, and Cambodian the Asian mix in the United States and Canada has
changed. In 1970, for example, 96 percent of Asians in America were either
Japanese, Chinese or Filipino but currently these groups represent only 50
percent of Asian Americans, and now Asian Indians, Koreans, and Vietnamese
all outnumber Japanese Americans.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
5
Asians in Canadian Metropolitan
Areas, 1991
Canadians in recent years have increasingly lived in urban settings, close to
80 percent in 1991, and more specifically in large metropolitan areas and even
more specifically in the three largest metropolitan areas (see Table 4).
Table 4. Asians in Canadian
Metropolitan Areas, 1991*
Rank
Metro Area
Total
Population
(000s)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
Ottawa-Hull
Edmonton
Calgary
Winnipeg
Quebec
Hamilton
London
St. Catherines
Kitchener
Halifax
Victoria
Windsor
3893
3127
1603
921
840
754
652
646
600
382
365
356
320
288
262
Cumulative
Percent of
Total
Population
Asian
Population
(000s)
Cumulative
Percent of
Total Asian
Population
Percent Asian
Pop./Percent
Total Pop.
14.4%
26.0%
31.9%
35.3%
38.4%
43.2%
45.6%
48.0%
50.2%
51.6%
53.0%
54.3%
55.5%
56.6%
57.6%
555
105
304
35
70
71
46
3
20
10
5
14
4
13
8
40.2%
47.8%
69.8%
72.4%
77.5%
82.6%
86.0%
86.5%
88.0%
88.7%
89.1%
90.1%
90.4%
91.3%
91.9%
2.8%
0.7%
3.7%
0.8%
1.6%
1.8%
1.4%
0.2%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.8%
0.3%
0.8%
0.6%
* Includes South Asians and East and
At the time of the last major census in 1991, 32 percent of all Canadians were
residents of metropolitan Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver, and 58 percent
lived in the 15 largest metropolitan areas. This concentration is even more
pronounced for Asians in Canada with 70 percent of all Asians living in the
three largest metropolitan areas and 92 percent in the largest 15.
The last column in Table 4 shows the concentration of Asians in the 15 largest
metropolitan areas. An index of more than one indicates a concentration
relative to the overall population, and less than one means that Asians are
under-represented relative to the total population. There are only 5 metropolitan areas with an index greater than one, namely, Toronto, Vancouver,
Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg. Montreal, the second largest metropolitan
area in Canada, has fewer Asians than one would expect relative to its size.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
6
Southeast Asians
Source: Statistics Canada
Disaggregating by group reveals some interesting patterns (see Table 5).
Metropolitan Toronto and metropolitan Vancouver are dominant. Forty percent
of all the Chinese in Canada in 1991 lived in metropolitan Toronto, as did 42
percent of all Filipinos, and 49 percent of Koreans. Vancouver was home for 29
percent of all Chinese, 33 percent of the Japanese, 22 percent of Thais, and 19
percent of Koreans. Montreal, under-represented with respect to the total
number of Asians, was home for 40 percent of all Cambodians in Canada, 25
percent of Laotians, and 21 percent of Vietnamese. This pattern reflects an
aggressive immigration policy to attract French-speaking immigrants from
French speaking areas of the world, in this case from former French colonies in
southeast Asia, and has produced favorable results for the Province of Quebec.
Questions are raised when it comes to explaining why it is that 14 percent of
all Filipinos live in Winnipeg and why 11 percent of Laotians live in the
Kitchener area. In order to fully understand these patterns, it will be necessary to assess a variety of factors including the role of sponsoring agencies
such as churches, as well as the degree of attractiveness of specific jobs for
certain groups.
It would appear that the settlement patterns of Asians in the United States in
many ways are similar to those in Canada. Asians in the United States, for
example, overwhelmingly live in large metropolitan areas, are concentrated in
a limited number of regions, and many groups are disproportionately represented in a limited number of metropolitan areas.
Asian Group
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Korean
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Laotian
Thai
Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
40
42
28
49
26
10
20
20
6
6
3
6
21
40
25
12
29
16
33
19
11
6
4
22
Winnepeg
Table 5. Asians in Canadian
Metropolitan Areas, 1991*
Kitchener
14
11
Total
75
78
64
74
58
56
60
54
* Numbers refer to percentages of that
particular group in Census Metropolitan
Areas. The CMAs include the three largest,
and others where the percentage of a
group in a CMA exceeds 10 percent.
Source: Statistics Canada
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
7
Asians in the United States
A) Regional Patterns
In 1990 the population of the United States was close to 250 million of which
7 million were Asian. The greatest concentration was in the West census
region with 3.7 million Asians out of a total population of close to 53 million,
or 7.1 percent of the region’s population (see Figure 1). Another way of
thinking about this concentration is to say that 54.1 percent of the country’s
Asians lived in the West. In comparison the Northeast region with 20.4
percent of the total population had 19.2 percent of the country’s Asians living
there, the South with 34.4 percent had 15.8 percent, and the Midwest with
24.0 percent of the population was home to 10.9 percent of all Asians.
Figure 1. US Census Bureau Regions
and Divisions
New
New
England
England
Pacific
Pacific
West
West North
North Central
Central
Middle
Middle
Atlantic
Atlantic
East
East North
North Central
Central
Mountain
Mountain
East
East
South
South
Central
Central
South
South
Atlantic
Atlantic
West
West South
South Central
Central
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Geography
Census Region
Census Division
(Figure 1)
Source: Census Bureau
WSU/Center for Urban Studies/MIMIC/djt
Most Asian groups were well represented in the West region ranging from a
high of 75.9 percent for Japanese to a low of 44.4 percent for Korean. The one
notable exception to this pattern was the Asian Indian group with only 23.1
percent residing in the West. The Northeast with 20.4 percent of the country’s
population has four groups that are over-represented with respect to the
overall population, namely Asian Indian, Chinese, Korean, and Cambodian.
More than one-third of all Asian Indians lived in the Northeast, as did 27.0
percent of Chinese, 22.8 percent of all Koreans, and 20.5 percent of Cambodi-
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
8
ans. The Midwest with 24.0 percent of the country’s population had only one
group with an over-representation. Forty-one percent of all Hmong lived in
this region and the next closest, both under-represented with respect to the
overall population, were Laotians and Asian Indians with 18.6 percent and
17.9 percent, respectively. No single Asian group was over-represented in the
South, which had 34.4 percent of the country’s population. The group with the
highest representation was Vietnamese with 27.4 percent of the nation’s
Vietnamese living there, followed by Thai with 26.0 percent, Asian Indian with
26.0 percent, and Laotian with 19.6 percent.
B) Metropolitan Patterns
Increasingly Americans continue to live in urban settings. By 1990, it was
estimated that 77.5 percent of the total population of the U.S. lived in urban
areas. For Asian Americans this figure was 94.4 percent. Furthermore, only
31.3 percent of Americans lived in a central city of a metropolitan area
compared with 47.1 percent for Asians. In examining individual groups the
variation in metropolitan living ranged from highs of 97.5 percent and 96.9
percent for Cambodians and Chinese to a low of 89.6 percent for Japanese.
Variation in central city living ranged from a high of 79.4 percent for Hmong
to a low of 39.8 percent for both Japanese and Asian Indian.
As in Canada, Asians and individual Asian groups were concentrated in a
limited number of metropolitan areas. Three metropolitan areas, Los AngelesAnaheim-Riverside, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, and New York-Northern
New Jersey-Long Island, with 14.6 percent of the population were home for
44.2 percent of the country’s Asians. In 1990, these three metropolitan areas
housed close to 60 percent of the nation’s Chinese, 46.7 percent of Filipinos,
44.4 percent of Koreans, and 40.7 percent of Vietnamese. Over 50 percent of
all Japanese lived in three metropolitan areas, namely Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and Honolulu; 24.4 percent of Asian Indians lived in the New York
metropolitan area, and 44.4 percent of Cambodians lived in the four metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Boston. One of the
most interesting concentrations is that of the Hmong with 38.5 percent living
in the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Fresno metropolitan areas, two areas that
combined had 1.3 percent of the nation’s population.
CMSAs/MSAs were ranked according to their overall population (see Table 6).
These rankings were compared with their overall Asian population ranking. As
expected, those metropolitan areas that had an Asian ranking more than five
ranking places higher than their population ranking were located in the Pacific
region. The Honolulu metropolitan area ranked fourth with respect to Asians
but 51st in overall population, San Diego was seventh in Asian population and
15th overall, Seattle-Tacoma was eighth and 14th, Sacramento 12th and 26th,
Stockton 16th and 76th, and Fresno 17th and 59th.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
9
Metropolitan Area
Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA
New York-Northern N. J.-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA
Honolulu, HI MSA
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA
Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA
San Diego, CA MSA
Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA
Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA
Sacramento, CA MSA
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI CMSA
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA
Stockton, CA MSA
Fresno, CA MSA
Atlanta, GA MSA
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA CMSA
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA
Baltimore, MD MSA
Denver-Boulder, CO CMSA
Phoenix, AZ MSA
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA MSA
Cleveland-Akron-Lorain, OH CMSA
Total Pop.
2
4
1
51
3
8
15
14
10
5
7
26
9
6
16
76
59
12
27
11
18
22
20
28
13
Rank
Asian Pop.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
An examination of measures of concentration for specific groups in metropolitan areas reveals similar patterns, namely the importance of the Pacific
region, the New York metropolitan area, and a limited number of other
metropolitan areas. Concentration indices compare the percentage that a
particular metropolitan area was of the total U.S. population compared with
the percentage of a particular group in each metropolitan area (see Table 7).
For example, San Diego with 1.0 percent of the U.S. population would have no
concentration of Cambodians if 1.0 percent of all Cambodians in the country
lived there. However, since 2.8 percent of all Cambodians lived there then the
index is 2.8, meaning that there are 2.8 times more Cambodians there than
there should be if Cambodians were represented in proportion to their overall
population.
Concentration indices reaffirm what has been outlined above, but in addition
give a specific measure of the degree of concentration. For example, Cambodians were highly concentrated in the Stockton, Fresno, Seattle, and Boston
metropolitan areas with indices of 36.3, 9.6, 6.1, and 4.8; Hmong in Fresno,
Stockton, Minneapolis, and Sacramento with indices of 75.8, 26.6, 18.4, and
10.6; and Laotians in Fresno, Stockton, and Sacramento with indices of 20.4,
14.7, and 8.9.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
10
Table 6. Ranking of Asian Population
Distribution in the 25 Largest U.S.
Metropolitan Areas, 1990
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 7. Concentration of Asian
Population in the 25 Largest U.S.
Metropolitan Areas, 1990 *
Metropolitan Area
Total
Chinese
Filipino
Japanese
Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA CMSA
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA
New York-Northern N. J.-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT CMSA
Honolulu, HI MSA
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN-WI CMSA
Washington, DC-MD-VA MSA
San Diego, CA MSA
Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA
Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA-NH CMSA
Sacramento, CA MSA
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI CMSA
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI MSA
Stockton, CA MSA
Fresno, CA MSA
Atlanta, GA MSA
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA CMSA
Denver-Boulder, CO CMSA
3.2
5.1
--17.8
--1.8
2.7
2.2
------2.7
------4.4
3.0
-------
3.2
7.9
2.7
11.4
------------1.8
3.0
-----------------
3.5
7.4
--25.4
----6.8
2.3
------2.4
------6.1
---------
3.5
3.7
--68.5
----2.1
3.1
------3.4
------2.3
3.0
-------
Asian
Indian
--2.6
3.4
--2.2
2.8
----2.2
------------2.2
2.4
-------
Korean
Vietnamese
Cambodian
Hmong
Laotian
Thai
Other Asian
4.2
2.1
2.0
8.4
--3.2
--2.9
-------------------------
4.1
5.5
--2.5
--2.4
3.4
2.3
3.8
----2.9
2.1
----5.9
----2.3
---
4.0
2.7
--------2.8
6.1
----4.8
------1.8
36.3
9.6
--2.3
---
------------1.8
--------10.6
----18.4
26.6
75.8
----1.8
--2.7
--3.3
----4.7
3.0
------8.9
2.4
--3.4
14.7
20.4
--3.5
---
4.5
----3.5
--3.0
--1.9
-------------------------
2.4
2.7
2.2
3.3
--3.1
----1.9
----2.1
------3.7
2.2
-------
Earlier it was mentioned that Frey and Liaw provide evidence indicating that
areas of high immigration were also areas of high domestic out-migration, and
that areas of high domestic migration tended to be areas of low immigration.
In addition, Ley has suggested that two additional issues need to be addressed: (1) the immigrant underclass, and (2) the immigrant overclass. These
issues now are addressed in a preliminary way in the context of Asian immigration.
*The five metropolitan areas with no
concentration values reaching 1.8 were
eliminated from the table.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
C) Immigrant Gateways/Domestic Magnet Metropolitan Areas
Frey and Liaw (1998) show that in recent years metropolitan areas exhibiting
high immigration tend to have low domestic migration or net out-migration,
and conversely areas of high domestic migration generally are areas of low
immigration. Data for 1990-99 support a continuation of this trend with the
New York and Los Angeles metropolitan areas receiving 1.4 million and 1.3
million immigrants but experiencing domestic out-migration of 2.0 million and
1.6 million, respectively. Many metropolitan areas falling into the category of
high international migration and low or negative domestic migration have
experienced considerable Asian immigration. In contrast, metropolitan areas
like Atlanta and Phoenix experienced high domestic migration and low
immigration during this same period. It appears, following a cursory examination of a limited number of metropolitan areas in the Pacific region, and more
specifically in the state of California, that the pattern of high immigration and
high domestic out-migration holds true for larger metropolitan areas such as
Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego. Sacramento, in contrast, experienced international immigration as well as domestic migration with international immigration approximately 55 percent of the total in-migration. In
other metropolitan areas in the Pacific region but outside of California,
domestic migration exceeded international migration and the smaller the
metropolitan area the more the domestic migration and the less the interna○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
11
tional. For example, in the cosmopolitan Seattle metropolitan area, domestic
migrants in the period 1990-99 exceeded international migrants by a ratio of
almost 2 to 1, whereas in the smaller, less cosmopolitan setting of Portland,
domestic migration exceeded international by a ratio of almost 5 to 1.
More work needs to be conducted on the relationship between international
immigration and domestic migration. Why is it that metropolitan areas having
a large international immigration tend to have large domestic out-migration?
Is the process just a continuation of the white flight process of the past when
new arrivals, whether immigrants, African Americans or others were moving to
the urban centers in North America. If the process is similar why does it occur
and where are the destinations of the people leaving? Frey and Liaw suggest a
movement beyond the limits of the metropolitan area; in other words, it is
more than the familiar urban-suburban movement. Furthermore, why is it that
areas of high domestic migration generally tend to have low international
migration? Is it a question of the occupational structure in these areas, or are
there other factors precluding high rates of international migration?
The image of the success or lack thereof of the immigrant varies. Some see the
immigrant locked into a cycle of poverty whereas others see immigrant groups
as highly successful. Questions of immigrant underclass and overclass are now
addressed in a preliminary/exploratory manner.
D) The Asian Immigrant Overclass and Underclass
Ley suggests, based on his recent work on immigration to Vancouver, much of
which is Asian, that ideas of underclass and overclass need to be carefully
reexamined. Underclass generally has been associated with residents living in
poverty and in segregated settings, occupying distinctive occupational niches,
speaking a language other than one of the two official languages of Canada,
and exhibiting a high degree of ethnic endogamy. On the other hand, there is
the image that many immigrants, for example, recent Chinese immigrants to
Vancouver coming from Hong Kong bring entrepreneurial skills which result in
an affluent and socially fulfilling life in Canada.
Ley shows for many ethnic groups, not necessarily always recent immigrants,
that there is a pattern of residential segregation, labor market segregation,
lack of social integration, linguistic distinctiveness, and within-group marriage. In addition, he points out that compared with an average Vancouver
income of $26,213 in 1991, immigrants of less that 10 years’ standing made
only $18,208, while 42 percent fell below the low-income cutoff, almost triple
the rate for the rest of the population. These average conditions worsened for
immigrants who had less than a high school education, who did not speak
English at home, who were women, and who were of non-European ethnicity.
He introduces another perspective for what might seem a life of poverty and
dependency. Immigrant families are generally bigger and have more children,
and because of the emphasis on the family may have greater social cohesion
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
12
and consequently should not necessarily be thought of as dysfunctional.
Furthermore, it is not the average personal income that should be considered
but rather average household income. He points out that immigrant households arriving from South Asia during the 1980s had an average size of 4.4
persons, the largest among all 21 ethnic groups. They ranked 17th in terms of
personal income, but fifth in household income.
Ley’s thesis is supported following a preliminary examination of data for a
limited number of CMSAs/MSAs in California. In the Stockton-Lodi MSA in
1990, for example, the overall per capita income was $12,705 but for Hmong,
Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese the average per capita income was
$2,419, $3,226, $3,354 and $3,870 respectively–numbers representing 19
percent, 25 percent, 26 percent, and 30 percent of the overall income for the
MSA. A slightly different view emerges following an examination of median
household income where for the total population the figure was $30,635 and
for the four groups it was $18,601, $16,887, $15,833, and $14,682 or 60
percent, 55 percent, 52 percent, and 48 percent of the overall household
income. These figures still are considerably below the overall average for the
entire community but not nearly as dramatic or dire as differences in per
capita income. Differences are attributable to differences in average household size with the average for the entire Stockton-Lodi MSA being 2.94 but for
the four groups the average sizes were 7.50, 6.22, 5.72, and 5.6, respectively.
Similar results were found following an examination of data for the Los
Angeles Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) and the Fresno MSA.
In contrast to the role of the underclass Ley suggests a need to reassess the
role of the overclass. In Canada, many new immigrants were admitted because
of their entrepreneurial acumen and/or their ability to bring with them
substantial financial resources. Whether this should be looked upon as success
is the question Ley raises. He shows, largely from anecdotal evidence, that the
rate of business failure is high for immigrants and because of discriminatory
reasons many highly qualified immigrants are either unemployed or underemployed, leading either to feelings of low self-esteem or to stress and tension
within the family network.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
13
Conclusions and Implications
A number of tentative conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary analysis
of recent Asian settlement in Canada and the United States. These conclusions
may be useful to social and urban planners as well as to those involved with
the framing of policy issues. Conclusions are summarized as follows:
1) The proportion of the total population of both Canada and the U.S. that is
of Asian ancestry will continue to increase in the future.
2) The source areas of individual Asian groups will continue to change in
years to come. In recent years there was a greater increase in the Cambodian
and Vietnamese populations than there was, for example, in the Japanese.
These shifts in the mix of the Asian population will depend on conditions in
Asia as well as possible changes in immigration policy in the years ahead.
3) Asians will continue to be concentrated in the West census region in the
U.S. and more specifically in metropolitan areas, both large and small, in
California. Asians will continue to move to large metropolitan areas rather
than smaller ones outside of California but still within the West region, as for
example, to the Seattle area.
4) Elsewhere in the U.S. Asians will continue their over-representation in
large metropolitan areas, particularly those in the Northeast region, such as
New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Outside the Northeast
and the West regions, Asians will continue to move to large metropolitan areas
where there are employment opportunities, for example, Chicago. Others, with
large growth due to domestic migration, may continue to exhibit limited Asian
immigration.
5) Specific groups both in the Pacific region and outside the region will have
concentrations in certain urban areas because of: a) unique occupational
opportunities within that region, b) ongoing chain migration processes, c) the
unique role played by sponsoring agencies such as church organizations, or for
other reasons. As shown in Table 7 in 1990 there were high concentrations, for
example, of Hmong in Fresno, Stockton, and Minneapolis; of Cambodians in
Stockton, Fresno, Seattle, and Boston; of Laotians in Sacramento, etc.
6) Asians in the U.S. will continue to live more in urban settings and more in
large metropolitan and central-city settings than the overall population.
7) Canada has passed into law policies supporting multiculturalism. This
multiculturalism can be viewed in a simplified form as two worlds—the world
of longevity, homogeneity, and relative stability on the one hand and the
world of newcomers, diversity, and rapid change on the other. The former is
found in places like Newfoundland where the majority of the population is of
British ancestry with a long history of settlement on the island, or on Cape
Breton with its long standing Scottish legacy, or in parts of Quebec with
French settlements dating back hundreds of years. It is a world of small urban
places where growth is slow or even negative. In contrast, the latter is
characterized by recent immigration, where the proportion of the population
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
14
that is foreign born is high and generally is found in the large metropolitan
areas of Canada, most noticeably Toronto and Vancouver. Often the two worlds
rarely if ever meet and invariably those inhabiting one world have little, or
inaccurate, knowledge of those in the other world.
Asians tend to inhabit this new large metropolitan world to a greater degree
than most other groups, and the pattern will continue in the future. As a
result, the Asian population will continue to be concentrated in metropolitan
Toronto and Vancouver, and the majority of Asians will live in the 15 largest
metropolitan areas. Asians from former French colonies in Asia will continue to
move to Montreal, the concentrations in the Prairie cities of Winnipeg,
Edmonton, and Calgary will continue. And like the U.S., there will be a few
cities with concentrations of some groups due to unique circumstances such as
the case of Laotians in Kitchener and Cambodians in London.
8) Preliminary observations on gateway immigrant cities and the immigrant
underclass and overclass suggest directions for future research: a) a need to
examine the relationship between in- and out-migration in metropolitan areas
experiencing large scale immigration, b) why those metropolitan areas that
are experiencing large-scale domestic migration generally have little immigration, c) what impact new immigrants have on the metropolitan areas to which
they move, and d) how successful new immigrants are in adapting to New
World settings and how does one measure success.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
15
Issues for Future Research
A) Impact of New Immigrants on Gateway Cities
Historically, immigrants moved to the central cities of America, generally
occupying the older housing close to the city center. As this occurred, the
more established groups, many of whom were mobile in a socio-economic
sense, moved outward into newer and better housing. Since the end of World
War II, this process generally is referred to as suburbanization or urban
sprawl. In recent years, new immigrants, if poor, still move to central cities,
while many of the more affluent immigrants move directly into suburban
settings. As immigrants continue to move to the big cities of America there
has been speculation about the impact that immigrants have on the areas to
which they move. Some speculate that the seeming revival of some metropolitan areas such as New York can be attributed to the role of new immigration
(Winnick, 1990). Reasons given include the importance that family, the work
ethic, entrepreneurial activity, and education have for many newcomers.
An outward movement of central-city residents accompanies the movement of
immigrants into gateway cities. Just what is happening to these outwardmoving migrants is unclear. Some suggest that it may be similar to the white
flight patterns of the 1950s and 1960s, while others hypothesize that migrants are moving longer distances to nonmetropolitan settings. Migrants
moving longer distances are characterized by Frey and Liaw (1998) as whites
without college education, with children, and with lower incomes. In addition
to the above migrants, a significant proportion of the metropolitan to
nonmetropolitan movement may consist of the pre-elderly and elderly retiree
populations who are adding to the rapid growth that has been occurring in
the Mountain and Southeastern states. Much more work needs to be done on
why a limited number of metropolitan areas are the main immigrant reception
areas, what impact these immigrants are having, and where the outwardmoving migrants are moving.
B) Domestic Magnet Cities
As mentioned above, metropolitan areas receiving the largest number of
domestic migrants are receiving few immigrants. Why this occurs is a question
that needs to be addressed.
C) The Myths of the Immigrant Underclass and the Immigrant Overclass
Ley (1999) has suggested that the concepts of immigrant underclass and
immigrant overclass need to be examined. The idea of an underclass might be
appropriate if one looks at the average per capita income data but less
appropriate in light of household income data. On the other hand, those
immigrants, for example, Chinese admitted to Canada because of high income
levels or their ability to open businesses, may not be faring as well as expected because of business failure, or because of the inability of people to
obtain or retain jobs congruent with their previous employment or education,
due to discrimination encountered in Canada.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
16
References
Barringer, Herbert R., Robert W.Gardner, and Michael J. Levin. 1993. Asians
and Pacific Islanders in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Frey, William H. and Kao-Lee Liaw. 1998. “Immigrant Concentration and
Domestic Migrant Dispersal: Is Movement to Nonmetropolitan Areas ‘White
Flight?’” The Professional Geographer, 50(2): 215-231.
Gardner, Robert W., Bryant Robey, and Peter C. Smith. 1985. Asian Americans:
Growth, Change, and Diversity. Population Bulletin, 40(4): 2-44.
Lee, Sharon M. 1998. Asian Americans: Diverse and Growing. Population
Bulletin, 53(2): 2-40.
Ley, David. 1999. “Myths and Meanings of Immigration and the Metropolis.”
The Canadian Geographer, 43(1): 2-19.
Pollard, Kelvin M. and William P. O’Hare. 1999. America’s Racial and Ethnic
Minorities. Population Bulletin, 54(3): 3-47.
Statistics Canada. Censuses of 1981 and 1991.
U.S. Census Bureau. Censuses of 1980 and 1990.
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, 2000.
Winnick, Louis. New People in Old Neighborhoods: The Role of New Immigrants
in Rejuvenating New York's Communities. New York, N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 1990.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
17